The authors of The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom believe that testing and standardizing the curriculum are not sufficient to improve our schools. They believe that the answer to improving schools lies in improving the quality of teaching and instructional methods (Hiebert & Stigler, 2009). They reference the National Association of Educational Progress (NEAP) scores to show the need to improve teaching and student outcomes. (Hiebert & Stiegler, 2009, p. 5)
Their approach to improving teaching and instructional methods is to draw on the very best that teachers have to offer. They believe there are many examples of excellent teaching that could easily be adopted by other teachers to improve instruction. One of the interesting points that they make is that variability in competence among teachers is “dwarfed by the differences in teaching methods.” (Hiebert & Stiegler, 2009, p. 10) They also point out that teaching varies much more among cultures than it does within them, showing that good teaching is primarily a cultural activity, which by extension can be changed and improved. They believe that we have made significant progress in our use of technology and other methods that enable us to capture effective teaching methods. They have used video data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) to learn from those with effective strategies across different countries including the United States, Japan and Germany. This edition of the book was put out ten years after the original edition and apparently includes additional insights beyond just what was learned from the TIMMS in the original edition.
The authors argue that measuring success or failure and letting individual schools and teachers figure out how to improve from there is ineffective. They believe we need a system for sharing effective teaching methods. They point out that, currently, there is not enough information on what those effective teaching methods are. Their book is designed to help point them out and suggest a method for ensuring they impact what happens in classrooms across the country.
About the Authors
James Stigler is a professor at UCLA in the Psychology Department, focused on developmental psychology. According to his biography on the UCLA web site his research “focuses on understanding processes of teaching and learning, especially of mathematics and science, from kindergarten through college. I am also interested in re-thinking the role of research and development in education, and in particular, how researchers can work with designer/developers and practitioners to build and improve education interventions.” (UCLA, 2013) He has a PhD in Developmental Psychology from the University of Michigan. According to the Carnegie Foundation “He has received numerous awards for his research, including a Guggenheim Fellowship and the QuEST award from the American Federation of Teachers. Stigler is best known for his observational work in classrooms, and has pioneered the use of multimedia technology for the study of classroom instruction.” (Carnegie Foundation, 2013)
James Hiebert is a professor in the School of Education at the University of Delaware. According to the University of Delaware web site he “researches ways to improve mathematics teaching in school classrooms and the preparation of mathematics teachers”; is “well versed on the comparison of international mathematics achievement and schooling” and he “serves on the editorial boards of various journals including "Elementary School Journal" and "Mathematical Thinking and Learning." (University of Delaware, 2013)
Contributing to Class Knowledge
The topic of how to identify and incorporate effective teaching strategies will be of interest to those in the class that are currently teaching or are preparing to be classroom teachers. The focus on how knowledge of effective teaching practices should influence decision making and educational reform will be of interest to those who are pursuing educational reform.
Research Questions
What conclusions do Hiebert and Stiegler draw on how best to identify the strategies of effective teachers?
Hiebert and Siegler feel that video data can be extremely helpful in understanding teaching practices and highlighting effective practice but they also point out that it is just the tip of the iceberg and that there are cultural assumptions and other pieces of teaching practice that create systems of teaching.
By pointing out the different cultural variations in mathematics teaching in Japan, Germany and the U.S. Hiebert and Stiegler highlight the importance of how education is conceived. Is it a teacher-led activity, is it a student-led activity with the teacher mediating or some other form? They point out that in the United States mathematics educations comes down to "learning terms and practicing procedures" whereas in Japan teachers give students a lot of latitude (though carefully monitored) to construct and solve problems and then the teacher mediates the learning taking place. In Germany the teacher leads students through problems that are more complex than those in classrooms in the U.S. They conclude that teaching is a system and all the elements, including seemingly small things, such as whether an overhead projector or chalkboard are used, are actually part of this larger system. They illustrate this by pointing out why Japanese teachers use a chalkboard rather than an overhead projector. It is because they want to provide a record of everything discussed in class and all the steps to solving problems. In the U.S. the overhead projector is used to focus attention and provide illustrations for verbal information as it is delivered.
They also point out the areas where the systems overlap such as reviewing previous material, the teacher presenting the day's problems and students sitting at their desks to solve problems. However, these activities are performed very differently and for different purposes in each culture.
Their primary conclusion is that effective teaching practices are best identified by communities of teachers working together to refine their craft and share their knowledge.
They highlight the practice of kounaikenshuu in Japan as a model for identifying effective teaching practices. In Japan it is the responsibility of the teachers to improve practice and they do it in communities dedicated to professional development. They also incorporate "lesson study" which is a group process of defining the question for study and planning the lesson. After the group defines the question and plans the lesson, one teacher teaches the lesson and is observed by the others. The groups then evaluates and revises the lesson. The focus is all on the lesson itself, rather than the teacher. They then re-teach the lesson and again observe, reflect and make changes. Hiebert and Siegler point out that teachers see "sharing of their findings as a significant part of the lesson-study process." (p. 115) They often produce a report and share it not only locally but nationally. They also point out that the key to the effectiveness of lesson study is thecommitment to gradual, continuous improvement, the focus on student learning and student improvement, teaching in context, the collaborative nature of the work and the motivation of participating in an activity that will improve practice beyond their walls.
Do Hiebert and Stigler have any specific suggestions for how knowledge of effective teaching strategies should be used in decision making in schools or how it should connect to educational reform?
Stigler and Hiebert contend, and state that other educational researchers agree, that "although teachers learn some things about teaching from their formal training, mostly they learn from simple cultural participation." In other words, teaching practices have evolved over long periods of time and they are replicated year after year. They are also clear that teaching "is not a simple skill but rather a complex cultural activity that is highly determined by beliefs and habits that work partly outside the real of consciousness" (p. 103). They state that one of the reasons the teaching style is so different in each country is the underlying cultural assumptions about the subject. One interesting cultural example they use is that in the U.S. teachers act like math is not interesting and that they feel they like they need to do non-Math like activities to make it more interesting. They point out that in the U.S. teachers goals for students are about learning specific math skills. In Japan, teachers just assume that math is interesting on its own and that students be engaged by exploring new methods for solving problems. Their specific goals for students are that they learn new ways to think about a things and see new relationships between mathematical ideas. They also point out that in Japan there is less of a focus in general on keeping the attention of students. They ensure the information is there if students want to go back to it, whereas in the United States there is a lot of focus on having the student's attention. They go on to explore how these and other cultural differences effect teaching styles in the two countries.
Hiebert and Stigler point out that "the cultural nature of teaching might also help to explain why teaching per se has rarely been the direct focus of efforts to reform education." (p.104) They discuss previous methods that were focused on changing teaching practices such as those put forward by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). He explains the typical reform method as "Experts are convened to review the research and experience of the profession and to formulate recommendations for change. These recommendations are then put in written documents that are widely disseminated." (p. 105) They state that in the reform case of NCTM, that although teachers were widely aware of the reform efforts and felt that they were implementing them in their practice, they were in fact, still sticking to the cultural norms and that when they tried to incorporate the reform within these existing norms the teaching was often even less effective than it had been previously. Their conclusion is that simply incorporating a new concept, such as problem based learning, but not changing the underlying teaching system, is ultimately regressive.
Their recommendation is to accept that teaching is a cultural activity and treat reform activity accordingly. They looked at Japan where teaching practices changed significantly in recent years. This system looked to achieve "gradual, incremental improvements in teaching over time" rather than "major changes over relatively short periods of time" such as is the case most often with U.S. reforms. (p. 109)
Not surprisingly, they offer the following steps for U.S. education reform and associated changes to achieve these goals:
An expectation of continuous, gradual improvement - to do this systems must be developed that measure incremental change
Focusing on student learning goals - development of shared goals at the district level at least, ideally at the national level
Focus on teaching rather than teachers - make time during the work week for teachers to learn and to collaborate - eliminate bureaucratic staff and activities
Develop reforms in classrooms where teachers teach ("teaching in context") - context is important - teachers need opportunities to test reforms in their setting
Allow teachers to lead improvement efforts - put the onus on the teachers - when the recommendations come from teachers they are perceived as more valid
Build a learning system - provide a system to share results and time for teachers to study and test the recommendations in their context.
They believe that the district level is the unit where restructuring can happen most successfully to enable these changes to come about. They are also clear that simply providing increased planning time by itself will not lead to positive reform. Also, simply telling teachers to collaborate has also been found not to work. They recommend modifying lesson study to work in the United States. Hiebert and Stigler attack the notion that it is enough to simply focusing on professionalizing through elements such as higher pay, career ladders and accountability. They contend that "a profession is not created by certificate and censures but by the existence of a substantive body of professional knowledge, as well as a mechanism for improving it, and by the genuine desire of the professions members to improve their practice." (p. 171) They also state that "the star teachers of the twenty-first century will be those who work together to infuse the best ideas in to standard practice. They will be teachers who collaborate to build a system that has the goal of improving students' learning in the "average" classroom, who work to gradually improve standard classroom practices." (p. 179)
What other research exists on incorporating an understanding of effective teaching methods into decisions making in schools and in educational reform efforts?
Recent educational theory on situated learning and communities of practice from Etienne Wenger and Jeanne Lave and associated research could be helpful in identifying ways to implement the reforms outlined by Hiebert and Stigler. In the absence of system-wide reform teachers can improve their practice by seeking out web sites and books (such as Looking In Classrooms or Schoolology) that offer examples of effective teaching methods. Teachers should also look to connect with mentors in their district who can provide them with ideas and support.
Hiebert, J. and Stigler, J. (2009) The teaching gap: best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Free Press. New York.
Summary of the Book’s Argument
The authors of The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom believe that testing and standardizing the curriculum are not sufficient to improve our schools. They believe that the answer to improving schools lies in improving the quality of teaching and instructional methods (Hiebert & Stigler, 2009). They reference the National Association of Educational Progress (NEAP) scores to show the need to improve teaching and student outcomes. (Hiebert & Stiegler, 2009, p. 5)
Their approach to improving teaching and instructional methods is to draw on the very best that teachers have to offer. They believe there are many examples of excellent teaching that could easily be adopted by other teachers to improve instruction. One of the interesting points that they make is that variability in competence among teachers is “dwarfed by the differences in teaching methods.” (Hiebert & Stiegler, 2009, p. 10) They also point out that teaching varies much more among cultures than it does within them, showing that good teaching is primarily a cultural activity, which by extension can be changed and improved. They believe that we have made significant progress in our use of technology and other methods that enable us to capture effective teaching methods. They have used video data from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) to learn from those with effective strategies across different countries including the United States, Japan and Germany. This edition of the book was put out ten years after the original edition and apparently includes additional insights beyond just what was learned from the TIMMS in the original edition.
The authors argue that measuring success or failure and letting individual schools and teachers figure out how to improve from there is ineffective. They believe we need a system for sharing effective teaching methods. They point out that, currently, there is not enough information on what those effective teaching methods are. Their book is designed to help point them out and suggest a method for ensuring they impact what happens in classrooms across the country.
About the Authors
James Stigler is a professor at UCLA in the Psychology Department, focused on developmental psychology. According to his biography on the UCLA web site his research “focuses on understanding processes of teaching and learning, especially of mathematics and science, from kindergarten through college. I am also interested in re-thinking the role of research and development in education, and in particular, how researchers can work with designer/developers and practitioners to build and improve education interventions.” (UCLA, 2013) He has a PhD in Developmental Psychology from the University of Michigan. According to the Carnegie Foundation “He has received numerous awards for his research, including a Guggenheim Fellowship and the QuEST award from the American Federation of Teachers. Stigler is best known for his observational work in classrooms, and has pioneered the use of multimedia technology for the study of classroom instruction.” (Carnegie Foundation, 2013)
James Hiebert is a professor in the School of Education at the University of Delaware. According to the University of Delaware web site he “researches ways to improve mathematics teaching in school classrooms and the preparation of mathematics teachers”; is “well versed on the comparison of international mathematics achievement and schooling” and he “serves on the editorial boards of various journals including "Elementary School Journal" and "Mathematical Thinking and Learning." (University of Delaware, 2013)
Contributing to Class Knowledge
The topic of how to identify and incorporate effective teaching strategies will be of interest to those in the class that are currently teaching or are preparing to be classroom teachers. The focus on how knowledge of effective teaching practices should influence decision making and educational reform will be of interest to those who are pursuing educational reform.
Research Questions
Hiebert and Siegler feel that video data can be extremely helpful in understanding teaching practices and highlighting effective practice but they also point out that it is just the tip of the iceberg and that there are cultural assumptions and other pieces of teaching practice that create systems of teaching.
By pointing out the different cultural variations in mathematics teaching in Japan, Germany and the U.S. Hiebert and Stiegler highlight the importance of how education is conceived. Is it a teacher-led activity, is it a student-led activity with the teacher mediating or some other form? They point out that in the United States mathematics educations comes down to "learning terms and practicing procedures" whereas in Japan teachers give students a lot of latitude (though carefully monitored) to construct and solve problems and then the teacher mediates the learning taking place. In Germany the teacher leads students through problems that are more complex than those in classrooms in the U.S. They conclude that teaching is a system and all the elements, including seemingly small things, such as whether an overhead projector or chalkboard are used, are actually part of this larger system. They illustrate this by pointing out why Japanese teachers use a chalkboard rather than an overhead projector. It is because they want to provide a record of everything discussed in class and all the steps to solving problems. In the U.S. the overhead projector is used to focus attention and provide illustrations for verbal information as it is delivered.
They also point out the areas where the systems overlap such as reviewing previous material, the teacher presenting the day's problems and students sitting at their desks to solve problems. However, these activities are performed very differently and for different purposes in each culture.
Their primary conclusion is that effective teaching practices are best identified by communities of teachers working together to refine their craft and share their knowledge.
They highlight the practice of kounaikenshuu in Japan as a model for identifying effective teaching practices. In Japan it is the responsibility of the teachers to improve practice and they do it in communities dedicated to professional development. They also incorporate "lesson study" which is a group process of defining the question for study and planning the lesson. After the group defines the question and plans the lesson, one teacher teaches the lesson and is observed by the others. The groups then evaluates and revises the lesson. The focus is all on the lesson itself, rather than the teacher. They then re-teach the lesson and again observe, reflect and make changes. Hiebert and Siegler point out that teachers see "sharing of their findings as a significant part of the lesson-study process." (p. 115) They often produce a report and share it not only locally but nationally. They also point out that the key to the effectiveness of lesson study is the commitment to gradual, continuous improvement, the focus on student learning and student improvement, teaching in context, the collaborative nature of the work and the motivation of participating in an activity that will improve practice beyond their walls.
Stigler and Hiebert contend, and state that other educational researchers agree, that "although teachers learn some things about teaching from their formal training, mostly they learn from simple cultural participation." In other words, teaching practices have evolved over long periods of time and they are replicated year after year. They are also clear that teaching "is not a simple skill but rather a complex cultural activity that is highly determined by beliefs and habits that work partly outside the real of consciousness" (p. 103). They state that one of the reasons the teaching style is so different in each country is the underlying cultural assumptions about the subject. One interesting cultural example they use is that in the U.S. teachers act like math is not interesting and that they feel they like they need to do non-Math like activities to make it more interesting. They point out that in the U.S. teachers goals for students are about learning specific math skills. In Japan, teachers just assume that math is interesting on its own and that students be engaged by exploring new methods for solving problems. Their specific goals for students are that they learn new ways to think about a things and see new relationships between mathematical ideas. They also point out that in Japan there is less of a focus in general on keeping the attention of students. They ensure the information is there if students want to go back to it, whereas in the United States there is a lot of focus on having the student's attention. They go on to explore how these and other cultural differences effect teaching styles in the two countries.
Hiebert and Stigler point out that "the cultural nature of teaching might also help to explain why teaching per se has rarely been the direct focus of efforts to reform education." (p.104) They discuss previous methods that were focused on changing teaching practices such as those put forward by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). He explains the typical reform method as "Experts are convened to review the research and experience of the profession and to formulate recommendations for change. These recommendations are then put in written documents that are widely disseminated." (p. 105) They state that in the reform case of NCTM, that although teachers were widely aware of the reform efforts and felt that they were implementing them in their practice, they were in fact, still sticking to the cultural norms and that when they tried to incorporate the reform within these existing norms the teaching was often even less effective than it had been previously. Their conclusion is that simply incorporating a new concept, such as problem based learning, but not changing the underlying teaching system, is ultimately regressive.
Their recommendation is to accept that teaching is a cultural activity and treat reform activity accordingly. They looked at Japan where teaching practices changed significantly in recent years. This system looked to achieve "gradual, incremental improvements in teaching over time" rather than "major changes over relatively short periods of time" such as is the case most often with U.S. reforms. (p. 109)
Not surprisingly, they offer the following steps for U.S. education reform and associated changes to achieve these goals:
They believe that the district level is the unit where restructuring can happen most successfully to enable these changes to come about. They are also clear that simply providing increased planning time by itself will not lead to positive reform. Also, simply telling teachers to collaborate has also been found not to work. They recommend modifying lesson study to work in the United States. Hiebert and Stigler attack the notion that it is enough to simply focusing on professionalizing through elements such as higher pay, career ladders and accountability. They contend that "a profession is not created by certificate and censures but by the existence of a substantive body of professional knowledge, as well as a mechanism for improving it, and by the genuine desire of the professions members to improve their practice." (p. 171) They also state that "the star teachers of the twenty-first century will be those who work together to infuse the best ideas in to standard practice. They will be teachers who collaborate to build a system that has the goal of improving students' learning in the "average" classroom, who work to gradually improve standard classroom practices." (p. 179)
Recent educational theory on situated learning and communities of practice from Etienne Wenger and Jeanne Lave and associated research could be helpful in identifying ways to implement the reforms outlined by Hiebert and Stigler. In the absence of system-wide reform teachers can improve their practice by seeking out web sites and books (such as Looking In Classrooms or Schoolology) that offer examples of effective teaching methods. Teachers should also look to connect with mentors in their district who can provide them with ideas and support.
Sources
Carnegie Foundation. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about-us/staff/james-stigler. Retrieved June 1, 2013
Hiebert, J. and Stigler, J. (2009) The teaching gap: best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. Free Press. New York.
UCLA. Department of Psychology. http://www.psych.ucla.edu/faculty/faculty_page?id=63&area=4. Retrieved June 1, 2013.
University of Delaware. http://udapps.nss.udel.edu/experts/326506242-James_Hiebert. Retrieved June 1, 2013.